Download Review of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary: Marine Protected Areas in

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts

Marine microorganism wikipedia, lookup

Indian Ocean wikipedia, lookup

Ocean acidification wikipedia, lookup

Marine debris wikipedia, lookup

Physical oceanography wikipedia, lookup

Marine life wikipedia, lookup

Southern Ocean wikipedia, lookup

History of research ships wikipedia, lookup

Marine pollution wikipedia, lookup

The Marine Mammal Center wikipedia, lookup

Ecosystem of the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre wikipedia, lookup

Marine habitats wikipedia, lookup

Marine biology wikipedia, lookup

Whaling wikipedia, lookup

Transcript
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 8(1):1–12, 2006
1
Review of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary: Marine Protected
Areas in the context of the International Whaling Commission
Sanctuary Programme
MARK A. ZACHARIAS*, LEAH R. GERBER+ AND K. DAVID HYRENBACH#
Contact e-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
This scientific review of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary (SOS) was commissioned by the IWC Scientific Committee and presented to the
IWC Steering Committee on 27-28 June 2004. This review addresses a number of questions related to the effectiveness of the SOS and
provides recommendations on how to incorporate Marine Protected Area (MPA) concepts into the SOS and the IWC Sanctuary programme.
Overall, the SOS – and IWC Sanctuaries in general – are based on vague goals and objectives that are difficult to measure, lack a rigorous
approach to their design and operation and do not have an effective monitoring framework for evaluation. In particular, the SOS represents
a ‘shotgun’ approach to conservation, whereby a large area is protected with little apparent rationale for boundary selection and management
prescriptions within the sanctuary. While a vast array of ecosystem-level and precautionary conservation benefits have been invoked for the
establishment of the SOS, in reality this sanctuary does little more than provide a false sense of security by assuming that broad protections
for whale populations are in place. The SOS was designed to restrict commercial harvests from the low latitude feeding grounds occupied
by large whales during the austral summer. However, the SOS does not protect against or mitigate other threats to Southern Ocean whale
stocks and the marine ecosystems upon which these populations depend, including pollution, habitat degradation and loss, introduced
species and global climate change. We thus contend that sanctuary establishment and evaluation should be guided by a series of measurable
and tangible goals, aimed at quantifying the status of both the ‘protected’ species under consideration and their role in the broader marine
ecosystem. In particular, the SOS could be improved substantially to become an important part of IWC management and the larger
conservation of Southern Ocean marine ecosystems, if the following steps were implemented: (a) development of formally stated goals (e.g.
biodiversity protection, fisheries enhancement); (b) establishment of measurable objectives with which to assess progress towards attaining
these goals; (c) creation of a formal management plan, including the establishment of a monitoring framework; and (d) development of more
appropriate review criteria, reflecting the ecological objectives of the management plan.
KEYWORDS: SOUTHERN OCEAN; SANCTUARIES; CONSERVATION; MARINE PROTECTED AREA; MARINE RESERVE
INTRODUCTION
Article V of the International Convention on the Regulation
of Whaling (the ‘Convention’ signed in 1946) permits the
designation of sanctuaries (IWC, 2006a). In designating a
sanctuary under the auspices of the Convention, the only
regulatory measures that can be taken involve prohibiting
the harvest of all whale species at any time from a specified
geographic area, irrespective of their conservation status. A
sanctuary in the South Pacific sector of the Southern Ocean
was established in 1949. It was deregulated on the advice of
the IWC Scientific Committee in 1955 in an attempt to
relieve pressure on the other, overexploited areas of the
Antarctic (IWC, 1955). Since then, two additional
sanctuaries have been adopted: the Indian Ocean Sanctuary
(IOS) in 1979 (renewed in 2002) and the Southern Ocean
Sanctuary (SOS) in 1994 (Fig. 1). Additional sanctuary
proposals in the South Atlantic and the South Pacific Oceans
have been tabled at recent IWC annual meetings (IWC,
2004c, pp.372-4; IWC, 2001b, pp.65-7; IWC, 2001a, pp.179; IWC, 2000, pp.14-7; IWC, 2002, p.67).
In 2003, the IWC directed the Scientific Committee to
undertake a decadal (1994-2004) review of the SOS (IWC,
2004b, pp.47-50). We were appointed by that body to review
the effectiveness of the SOS in meeting its objectives and
provide general advice on the value of MPA concepts to
existing and proposed IWC Sanctuaries, including the
establishment of sanctuary monitoring programmes. In
particular, we were asked to evaluate the following:
*
(1) whether the SOS contributes to the recovery of whale
stocks;
(2) how the SOS can advance the knowledge of whale
stocks and their environment;
(3) whether the SOS boundaries were appropriately
established; and
(4) how MPA concepts might be incorporated into the SOS
and other IWC Sanctuaries.
ESTABLISHMENT AND HISTORY OF THE SOS
The original SOS proposal stated that the primary purpose
of this sanctuary was to
‘contribute to the rehabilitation of the Antarctic marine ecosystem by
reinforcing and complementing other measures for the conservation of
whales and the regulation of whaling, in particular by the protection of
all Southern Hemisphere species and populations of baleen whales and
the sperm whales on their feeding grounds’ (IWC, 1993).
The SOS, however, was established after the
‘moratorium’ on global commercial whaling (Paragraph 10e
of the Schedule, e.g. IWC, 2006a), which sets commercial
whaling catch limits to zero for all species in all areas,
irrespective of their conservation status. Thus, the
moratorium, adopted in 1982 and implemented in 1985 and
a de facto global sanctuary was in place before the
establishment of the SOS.
Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Box 1700 STN CSC, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, V8W 2Y2.
Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Sciences, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Box 874501, Tempe, AZ 85287-4501, USA.
# Duke University Marine Laboratory, 135 Duke Marine Lab. Road, Beaufort, NC 28516, USA.
+
2
ZACHARIAS et al.: REVIEW OF THE SOUTHERN OCEAN SANCTUARY
Fig. 1. Map of existing International Whaling Commission (IWC) Sanctuaries in the Indian (A) and Southern (B) Oceans. Proposals for the
establishment of the South Pacific (C) and South Atlantic (D) Ocean Sanctuaries failed to gain the required three-quarters majorities at the 56th
annual IWC meeting, held in Sorrento (Italy) from 19-22 July 2004.
Critics of the SOS, therefore, have alleged that its
establishment reflected a desire to prevent commercial
whaling for Antarctic minke whales being allowed if the
Revised Management Procedure (RMP), a science-based
harvest framework within the broader Revised Management
Scheme (RMS) intended to replace the current moratorium.
The RMP is a very conservative management approach that
takes scientific uncertainty explicitly into account. It would
allow limited sustainable whaling on populations meeting
certain conditions. No catches would be allowed for any
populations below 54% of their estimated unexploited level,
with an ultimate general aim of stabilising these populations
above the MSY level (e.g. Donovan, 2002; Hammond and
Donovan, In press).
In response to a number of criticisms, IWC Resolution
1998-3 outlined a broader set of scientific objectives for the
SOS (IWC, 1999):
(1) the recovery of whale stocks, including the undertaking
of appropriate research upon and monitoring of depleted
populations;
(2) the continuation of the Comprehensive Assessment of
the effects of setting zero catch limits on whale stocks;
and
(3) the undertaking of research on the effects of
environmental change on whale stocks.
The SOS currently prevents commercial whaling being
allowed on any nine migratory species/subspecies of large
cetaceans in their summer feeding grounds: ‘true’ blue
whale (Balaenoptera musculus musculus) and pygmy blue
whale (B.m. brevicauda); fin whale (B. physalus); sei whale
(B. borealis); Antarctic minke whale (B. bonaerensis); dwarf
minke whale (B. acutorostrata); humpback whale
(Megaptera novaeangliae); southern right whale (Eualaena
australis) and sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus). Had
the RMP been implemented, catches would only have been
allowed on one of these, the Antarctic minke whale.
Whaling, however, is currently occurring in the SOS under
special permit. Article VIII of the Convention permits any
contracting government to authorise its nationals to kill,
take, or treat whales for scientific research purposes (IWC,
2006a). Japan harvested up to 440 Antarctic minke whales
annually from 1987/88-2004/05 under scientific permits
within the SOS; it has since increased this under a new
programme to up to 935 Antarctic minke whales and 10 fin
whales with the possibility of increasing the number of fin
whales to 50 and adding 50 humpback whales after
2006/2007 (IWC, 2006b, pp.48-9). The total abundance of
Antarctic minke whales was estimated at 761,000 (95%
CI=510,000-1,140,000) during the period 1982/83–1988/89,
with more recent estimates under revision (e.g. see IWC,
1991).
REVIEW OF THE SOUTHERN OCEAN
SANCTUARY
The SOS (and indeed IOS) lack formally stated goals (e.g.
biodiversity protection, fisheries enhancement) and
measurable objectives (e.g. recovery targets), without which
it is impossible to assess the effectiveness of sanctuary
establishment. Consequently, the SOS lacks a formal
management plan that specifies objectives in a quantitative
manner and provides clear strategies for achieving these
goals (e.g. protection of feeding grounds, reducing noise
pollution in critical areas, integration with the RMP). It
should be noted that given the limitations of the IWC
Convention to the regulation of whaling, achieving such
goals would require cooperation with other bodies.
Similarly, as will be discussed further below, it lacks an
appropriate monitoring plan. These fundamental steps in the
design and management of marine reserves will be required
to incorporate MPA principles into the IWC Sanctuary
programme.
The following sections of our review correspond to the
questions posed to us by the IWC Scientific Committee.
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 8(1):1–12, 2006
Contributions of the SOS to the recovery of whale
stocks
Given that the moratorium on commercial whaling was
instituted prior to the establishment of the SOS, the direct
contribution of this sanctuary to the recovery of whale
stocks cannot easily be determined given the lack of
empirical evidence. In the absence of a formal definition of
‘recovery’ we have chosen to base it on the concept behind
the RMP1 and consider it as achieving a population
approximately 72% of its unexploited level. While it is true
that whales are protected from commercial whaling within
the SOS, this protection is effectively redundant as long as
the moratorium remains in place. If commercial whaling
were to resume under the RMP (which only applies to
baleen whales and only allows catches from stocks above
54% of their unexploited size), the SOS would prevent
commercial catches of stocks for which the RMP would
allow catches within its boundaries – at present this would
probably only apply to some stocks of Antarctic minke
whales – the RMP would probably indicate catch limits of
zero for the other stocks of baleen whales for the near-mid
future. However, as all baleen whales species and their
constituent populations migrate outside of the SOS, it can be
said that this sanctuary does not fully protect Southern
Ocean large whale species (Davies and Gales, 2004) since
catches can be taken outside the SOS boundaries. Only in
the Indian Ocean, where the IOS and SOS are adjacent,
would the existing IWC sanctuaries protect certain baleen
whale stocks during their entire latitudinal seasonal
movements. In effect, the value of the SOS and IOS in terms
of providing complete protection from whaling (including
preventing commercial whaling on stocks for which the
RMP would allow catches), will ultimately depend on the
discrete nature of Indian Ocean whale stocks. In other
words, due to its limited extent, the current configuration of
the SOS will probably fail to fully protect large whale
populations, in the absence of a well-managed fishery
management programme (i.e. RMP). More study is
required, however, to evaluate this statement for specific
stocks and species, within a broader ecological context of
predator-prey dynamics and climatic variability (Hewitt et
al., 2002; Mackinson et al., 2003). In particular, the
uncertain structure of Southern Ocean whale stocks is a
critical consideration for the design of IWC sanctuaries
(Davies and Gales, 2004; Hucke-Gaete et al., 2004; Stafford
et al., 2004).
Currently, the degree of protection afforded by the SOS to
different whale stocks/populations as a refuge from future
commercial harvesting is dictated by their natural history
(e.g. extent of seasonal migrations, location of summer-time
foraging grounds) rather than by their status (e.g. whether
they actually require this protection or not). Some additional
level of protection in important (e.g. ‘critical’ or
‘vulnerable’) areas at key times would benefit whales within
the SOS. Examples of this enhanced protection include
prohibitions on activities that impact whales (e.g. vessel
strikes), their prey (e.g. commercial fisheries), or their
habitats (e.g. pollution). In addition, because certain areas
currently within the SOS may not contribute to the IWC
mandate and objectives (e.g. not used by large cetaceans for
any aspect of their life history), they could be removed from
the Sanctuary in exchange for more stringent and
1
Given the variety of scenarios tested under the RMP, there is no
formal goal – 72% represents the ‘tuning’ level chosen to compare
candidate procedures performance after 100 years for a specific trial
(Hammond and Donovan, In press)
3
appropriate prohibitions in more important habitats located
within the SOS (e.g. foraging grounds) or elsewhere (e.g.
breeding grounds). Most research into habitat-based harvest
management and MPAs suggests that integrated
management approaches, capable of merging fishery
closures with additional regulations and protections, are
most effective at meeting Sanctuary goals and conservation
objectives, especially for far-ranging species (Boersma and
Parrish, 1999; Gilman, 2001).
Contributions of the SOS to the knowledge of whale
stocks and their environment
One of the primary anticipated benefits of establishment of
the SOS was to create an area where whales would be
studied in the absence of commercial harvest. Similarly,
many MPAs and sanctuaries are designed to provide
baselines to gauge ecological change in areas beyond their
boundaries (e.g. Murray et al., 1999; Ainley, 2003).
However, because the SOS was established after the
moratorium, it could not provide supplemental ecological
information for comparing harvested and non-harvested
whale populations. Thus, a major potential scientific benefit
of sanctuary establishment did not materialise.
The SOS has been credited with fostering a number of
ongoing cooperative and integrative research programmes
in the Southern Ocean, including multi-national photoidentification studies, international ecosystem research
cruises and coordinated surveys of whale distributions and
oceanographic conditions. Compared to most other MPAs,
however, the number of investigations carried out as a result
of the SOS has been limited and is difficult to evaluate.
Sanctuary designation has not appeared to result in a
significant increase in the number or size of non-lethal
research programmes, compared with non-sanctuary areas.
Nevertheless, we identified some ongoing research efforts
within the SOS, including cooperative studies involving
non-governmental organisations and university researchers
(e.g. Stevick et al., 2004), collaborative cruises between
CCAMLR and Southern Ocean GLOBEC (Hofmann et al.,
2002; Thiele et al., 2004), the IWC-SOWER programme in
the western Antarctic Peninsula (2001-2004) (Ensor et al.,
2004) and studies between the IWC and CCAMLR (19992004) (Gillespie, 1997; Leaper and Scheidat, 1998; Leaper
and Papastavrou, 1999; Thiele et al., 2004).
Additionally, large-scale monitoring programmes of other
upper-trophic consumers (e.g. pinnipeds and seabirds) and
their prey (e.g. Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba) are
underway, under the auspices of CCAMLR and national
research programmes throughout the Southern Ocean (Boyd
and Murray, 2001; Croxall et al., 1999; Hewitt et al., 2002;
Inchausti et al., 2003; Woehler, 1997). What regional
cooperation that does exist appears to be directed at the
continuation of the SOS and the establishment of additional
sanctuaries. The presumed but unstated rationale behind
these efforts appears to be to achieve the precautionary
exclusion of whaling from ecologically important areas, in
advance of the potential resumption of harvesting under the
RMP. While a laudable social goal for some cultures, these
are not scientific aims and therefore cannot be regarded as
regional cooperation in the context of this review.
In contrast, the IOS does appear to have fostered some
cooperative efforts among regional nations and government
and non-government organisations (De Boer et al., 2003),
although progress towards this has been relatively slow (e.g.
see Leatherwood and Donovan, 1991). This may be a
function of the number of countries adjacent to the IOS, the
encouragement and publicity the establishment of a
4
ZACHARIAS et al.: REVIEW OF THE SOUTHERN OCEAN SANCTUARY
sanctuary gave to local researchers, and to some extent
opportunity the sanctuary afforded the research community
to compare protected whale populations in the Indian Ocean
with areas in which whaling continued, at least prior to the
establishment of the moratorium. While similar
collaborative efforts are underway for the SOS (e.g. Van
Waerebeek et al., 2004), it is difficult to evaluate to what
extent the creation of this sanctuary motivated and
facilitated these synthetic studies.
While designation of IWC Sanctuaries (such as the SOS)
is not required to initiate discussions between various
jurisdictions and stakeholders, such sanctuaries should
provide a focal point for discussions, just as the Particularly
Sensitive Sea Area programme has done (Gjerde, 2001).
MPA designations in other parts of the world have resulted
in significant increases in the amount of research conducted
in their waters (e.g. Murray et al., 1999; Halpern, 2003).
This may be a temporary benefit; however, as the current
interest in MPAs may wane and a lack of future funding may
pose additional limitations.
A stated objective of the SOS is to compare stocks within
and outside of the boundaries of the protected area.
However, because the SOS encompasses the entire Southern
Ocean south of 60°S and much of it south of 40°S (see Fig.
1), i.e. much of the feeding grounds of baleen whales, whale
stocks within the Sanctuary must be compared to stocks in
warm temperate oceans north of 40°S, where threats to
whales may be entirely different or of an unequal
magnitude. In addition to this logistical difficulty, this
approach is fraught with a deeper conceptual limitation.
This ‘use’ of the SOS assumes that comparisons between
harvested and non-harvested populations are inherently
valid. There are a number of difficulties with this
assumption that inhibit comparisons across ocean basins,
including:
(a) potential large-scale differences in the effects and
impacts of climatic variability (e.g. magnitude and time
lags between local changes in ocean productivity and
the Southern Oscillation Index);
(b) changes to the rest of the food chain via anthropogenic
activities (e.g. loss of the prey base due to competition
with fisheries and global climate change); and
(c) additional human impacts, including incidental
mortality (e.g. bycatch and ship strikes), habitat
degradation and loss (e.g. plastic and acoustic pollution)
and introduced species are not uniformly distributed
throughout the global ocean.
In particular, the connectivity with the IOS may compromise
any comparisons between the Indian Ocean sector of the
SOS and other ocean basins where whaling might be
permitted. Furthermore, because the SOS encompasses most
areas south of 40°S, potential comparisons would likely
have to be restricted to those stocks that either do (e.g.
harvested outside of SOS) or do not (i.e. protected from
harvest throughout life cycle) migrate outside of the
Sanctuary waters. Other practical difficulties in making
comparisons and detecting changes have been discussed by
Butterworth and Punt (1994) and Butterworth and De
Oliveira (1994). Additionally, the whaling versus nonwhaling comparison does not consider the potential
confounding effects of illegal harvesting, regional
disparities in the competition of whale stocks with other
upper-trophic predators consuming the same marine
resources (e.g. penguins, pinnipeds, petrels) and the
inability to detect a recovery in depleted whale populations
depressed from past commercial whaling. These two
artefacts may yield statistically insignificant comparisons
within and between established sanctuaries. While illegal
whaling, like other illegal – unreported – unregulated (IUU)
fishing activities, is difficult to quantify, there is abundant
evidence of the dietary overlap and the fluctuations of many
Southern Ocean predator populations (Croxall, 1992;
Croxall et al., 1999; Woehler, 1997). Therefore, any
geographic comparison across ocean basins should
incorporate an understanding of potential spatial/temporal
overlap and competition with fisheries and other uppertrophic consumers of whale prey.
Ecological appropriateness of the SOS boundaries
Evaluating the ecological appropriateness of the SOS
boundaries is difficult in the absence of a set of formally
stated goals and objectives that specifically outline the
purpose of the Sanctuary. While there is some broad
ecological, biogeographic and oceanographic rationale for
the current boundary, the extent of the SOS does not
generally conform to the established principles of reserve
design (Fig. 2). These include delineating boundaries based
on biological, oceanographic and physiographic criteria
such as the distributions of water masses, ocean productivity
domains, marine communities and ‘protected’ species
(Hooker et al., 1999; Probert, 1999; Hyrenbach et al., 2000;
Zacharias and Roff, 2000).
It seems clear that the SOS would benefit by drawing on
lessons learned from previous case studies of reserves for
wide-ranging species (summarised in Hooker and Gerber,
2004) and from other initiatives directed at identifying
important migration routes and foraging grounds of other
upper-trophic marine predators (e.g. seabirds, pinnipeds)
throughout the Southern Ocean (e.g. Croxall and Wood,
2002; Nel and Taylor, 2003). Gerber et al. (2005) modelled
changes in population growth rates (l) as a result of
hypothetical changes in the rate of dispersal from sanctuary
to non-sanctuary areas. In the future, researchers may wish
to contrast the implications of specific sanctuary boundary
designs by using an expanded version of this generalised
demographic model, capable of incorporating speciesspecific movement data.
The SOS boundary appears to have been delineated
primarily through a socio-political compromise (notably
with respect to EEZs between 40°S and 60°S), with some
consideration given to the multiple species it is designed to
protect. Given its stated multi-species objectives, the
delineation of the sanctuary boundaries will have to
reconcile many compromises.
From an ecological perspective, the following aspects of
the SOS boundary are probably appropriately established:
(a) the boundary meets with that of the IOS to preserve a
contiguous marine area, thus ensuring connectivity
between the IOS and SOS (Fig. 1);
(b) the 40°S latitude boundary is roughly consistent with a
zone of transition between warm-water and cold-water
temperate biogeographic domains associated with the
location of the Subtropical Convergence, a broad
(~100km) frontal region where subtropical and subAntarctic waters converge as a result of the prevalent
large-scale wind patterns (Sverdrup et al., 1942; Rio and
Hernandez, 2003) – however, the frontal boundaries
between these distinct water masses vary both spatially
and temporally (Belkin and Gordon, 1996; Kostianoy et
al., 2004; Fig. 3); and
(c) it meets a general criteria that a single, large reserve is
more beneficial than several small reserves (the SLOSS
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 8(1):1–12, 2006
5
– Single Large Or Several Small debate) – although this
does not particularly reflect the ecological choice of
boundaries, merely that the area it covers is very
(b) large.
From an ecological perspective, the following aspects of
the SOS boundary are probably not appropriately
established:
(a) although the SOS encompasses a variety of large-scale
oceanographic habitats, spanning from the Subtropical
Convergence (~35-45°S) south to the permanent ice
sheet (~65-75°S), several biogeographic domains and
water masses are not represented within this sanctuary
(Longhurst, 1998), thus providing a poor degree of
representativity;
(b) the boundary does not contour to any particular
oceanographic (e.g. water temperature) or
physiographic (e.g. depth) characteristic(s) other than
latitude and distance from territorial waters;
(c) there is no ecological basis for the manner in which the
existing boundary excludes waters around landmasses –
if the SOS must avoid large landmasses then its
boundary could at least be delineated on the basis of
biological (e.g. neritic vs. pelagic zooplankton
communities), oceanographic (e.g. pycnocline depth),
or physiographic (e.g. location of the 200m
continental shelf break) which show some relationship
to marine community types and ocean productivity
patterns;
(d) good conservation reserve design favours ‘smooth’
reserve boundaries; square corners such as those around
territorial waters should be avoided to minimise the
impacts of detrimental edge effects;
(e) the boundary is static in space and time and does not
reflect seasonal changes in the spatial configuration of
current systems, ocean productivity patterns and marine
communities (Figs 2 and 3); and
(f) while the SOS is large, several migratory species cross
the boundary on their migration routes.
In conclusion, while the SOS boundary appears to have been
based primarily on socio-political considerations, certain
aspects of the SOS are ecologically justified. Overall,
however, boundary adjustments to better reflect ecological
processes and structures in the Southern Ocean would prove
more effective in achieving the objectives of the Sanctuary.
For instance, the now widespread use of GPS navigation
equipment facilitates the design (and enforcement) of more
complex boundaries, which could follow specific
physiographic features and even be dynamic in nature to
accommodate spatial and temporal variability in the
underlying oceanography (Hyrenbach et al., 2000). This
approach would allow reserves to encompass dynamic
habitats by shifting location, thus avoiding a major
detrimental by-product of MPA designation. Sitting reserves
in ‘poor’ habitats (i.e. sinks) may have the effect of
increasing fishing pressure in the ‘good’ habitats (i.e.
sources), resulting in a downward spiral of the whole
network as sinks rely on source areas for propagules. In the
case of Southern Ocean whales, differences in diet (krillfeeding mysticetes, squid-eating odontocetes), foraging
habitats (ice leads, pack ice, open water) and biogeographic
affinities (water masses, degree of association with sea ice)
will likely influence community structure over time and
space and therefore boundary location (Ainley et al., 1986;
Stahl et al., 1985; Tynan, 1998). In addition to changing the
extent and location of the SOS, the inherent nature of the
Fig. 2. Map of the Southern Ocean, showing the extent of the SOS
(dashed line) and a conceptual representation of the major
oceanographic fluxes influencing the distributions of water masses
and prey community structure along sanctuary boundaries. The
arrows show the generalised flow of the major currents in this region:
the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) flowing eastwards around
Antarctica; the northward-flowing eastern boundary currents in the
Atlantic (Benguela Current, BC), Pacific (Humboldt Current, HC)
and Indian (Leeuwin Current, LC) Oceans; and the southwardflowing western boundary currents in the Atlantic (Brazil Current,
BC), Pacific (East Australia Current, EC) and Indian (Agulhas
Current, AG) Oceans.
sanctuary boundaries (static vs. dynamic, core area
surrounded by buffers) may change if MPA design concepts
are incorporated into the IWC Sanctuary programme.
INCORPORATION OF MPA CONCEPTS INTO IWC
SANCTUARIES
Applications of MPAs to marine mammals
Marine reserves are a relatively new approach to marine
conservation, with the vast majority of the relevant theory
published since 1992 (see Gerber et al., 2003 for a review).
MPAs (IWC Sanctuaries are a type of MPA that prohibits
commercial exploitation of a particular taxon) can be
effective tools for the conservation and management of
marine resources (Duggan and Davis, 1993; Gell and
Roberts, 2003; Halpern, 2003; Hooker and Gerber, 2004;
Roberts and Hawkins, 2000). To date, marine reserve
models have largely focused on questions concerning
fishery management, with most studies concluding that
reserves increase yield when populations would otherwise
be overfished. However, few of these existing single-species
models have considered all life stages, thereby failing to
acknowledge that most marine organisms are wide-ranging
and have life history stages that occur in very different
habitats.
Currently, marine sanctuaries are being established
worldwide on the basis of their marine mammal or bird
fauna (for examples see Hooker and Gerber, 2004).
However, designation of MPAs for slow growing, long-lived
species such as marine mammals and seabirds has largely
taken place without ecological input. There is little
systematic theory for how to select, design and monitor
reserves implemented to protect marine mammals. In
6
ZACHARIAS et al.: REVIEW OF THE SOUTHERN OCEAN SANCTUARY
Fig. 3. Seasonal variability in the location of major oceanographic fronts throughout the Southern Ocean, as revealed by the average sea surface
temperature (SST) conditions during (A) summer and (B) winter since the SOS was established (1994-2004). These monthly Reynolds Optimally
Interpolated Sea Surface Temperature data, with a spatial resolution of 1°31°, are publicly available at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Physical
Oceanography Distributed Active Archive Center (PODAAC) server (http://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/). Four frontal systems, mapped using the location
of a specific surface isotherm, are plotted from south to north: the polar front (4°C), the sub-Antarctic front (10°C), the southern subtropical front
(13°C) and the northern subtropical front (17°C). The extent of the Subtropical Convergence (dashed lines), separating sub-Antarctic waters to the
south from sub-tropical waters to the north, is generally delineated by the location of the 13°C and 17°C surface isotherms (Belkin and Gordon,
1996; Kostianoy et al., 2004).
protecting a specific population, the optimal protected area
would encompass that population’s year-round distribution,
which is often very large. However, most migratory species
have certain critical periods and/or areas in their life cycles
in which they congregate for a number of reasons (e.g.
staging, foraging, breeding) and are vulnerable to human
activities such as capture or pollution (Roberts and
Hawkins, 2000). In addition, oceanic and coastal
physiography often concentrates migratory species into
‘bottlenecks’ (e.g. passages, lagoons) where they become
more vulnerable to harvest. Since several of the threats
faced by marine mammals are either incremental (e.g.
pollutant exposure) or instantaneous (e.g. acoustic pollution,
fishery bycatch), well-sited MPAs may protect whale
populations from specific threats within areas of
aggregation during critical times.
Developing a robust MPA design for wide ranging species
is challenging. Comparisons of stocks/species with different
life-history characteristics (e.g. diets, habitats, migrations)
within sanctuary waters may be as ecologically insightful as
regional comparisons of the trends and status of the same
species in different geographic areas. In addition to these
comparisons across whale stocks and species, broad
sanctuary management plans may take advantage of
ancillary data from other ecosystem constituents, including
upper-trophic consumers (e.g. seabirds, pinnipeds) and
lower-level prey species (e.g. Antarctic krill, Euphasia
superba) (Agnew, 1997; Croxall, 1992). Two types of
upper-trophic predator data might be especially valuable to
quantify fluctuations in the food-web structure supporting
Southern Ocean whale populations: (a) measures of predator
dispersion and overall abundance at-sea (e.g. Hunt et al.,
1992; Woehler, 1997); and (b) colony-based information on
predator diet composition, foraging effort and reproductive
success (e.g. Boyd and Murray, 2001; Croxall et al., 1999).
In addition to an understanding of the life-history (e.g.
recruitment) and the dispersion (e.g. patchiness) of the prey
itself, information on other krill consumers will be essential
to interpret the geographic comparisons of whale stocks
(e.g. Hewitt et al., 2002; Miller and Hampton, 1989).
Furthermore, an enhanced understanding of prey availability
and consumption will serve as the foundation for the
establishment of a precautionary ecosystem-level
management plan to protect Southern Ocean upper-trophic
predators (whales, seabirds, pinnipeds) from competition
with fisheries (Boyd, 2002; Hewitt et al., 2002). Similar
considerations have been used to gauge the trophic
implications of MPAs and ecosystem-level management
plans in other oceanic regions (e.g. Hunt et al., 2000;
Hooker et al., 2002).
MPA goals
Fundamentally, MPAs can be considered to have two
primary goals; the first is to preserve biodiversity and the
second is to produce the highest fishery yields (Hastings and
Botsford, 2003). While it may be possible to configure a
single MPA to reconcile both of these goals, there has been
little work on identifying how specific design concepts can
advance these biodiversity and fishery reserves. Generally,
MPAs designed to conserve biodiversity favour larger areas
that encompass the dispersal distance for recruits.
Conversely, protected areas designed to enhance production
for sessile species tend to be small, to maximise larval
export (Hastings and Botsford, 2003), but may have to be
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 8(1):1–12, 2006
large when dealing with highly mobile pelagic taxa (Parrish,
1999).
A broader suite of goals has been proposed for MPAs,
which generally include:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
scientific research;
wilderness protection;
preservation of species and genetic diversity;
maintenance of environmental services;
protection of specific natural and cultural features;
tourism and recreation;
education;
sustainable use of natural resources;
restoration or rehabilitation of communities and
ecosystems; and
(j) maintenance of cultural and traditional attributes (after
Airame et al., 2003; Kelleher, 1999; Murray et al.,
1999).
Many MPA efforts utilise a variety of objectives to further
articulate the goals listed above. Objectives in support of the
goals outlined above, include the conservation and
protection of the following:
(a) commercial and non-commercial fisheries resources,
including marine mammals and their habitats;
(b) endangered or threatened marine species and their
habitats;
(c) unique habitats and endemic taxa; and
(d) areas of high biodiversity or biological productivity.
Additionally, MPA objectives focused on biological
attributes are often restated in terms of their degree of
biogeographic representation. In terms of whale
conservation and management these include:
(a) the protection of larger mobile, entirely marine and
generally seasonally migrant species;
(b) the protection of mobile marine species referenced to
the land environment (e.g. nesting sea birds, pinnipeds);
(c) the conservation of rare/endangered or isolated
populations and communities of benthic species,
including areas of high local biodiversity for specific
taxa;
(d) the preservation of specific habitats and their associated
communities of the wider marine environment (also
known as representative habitats);
(e) the sustainable management of natural marine resources
such as fisheries (and fishing/spawning areas) that may
not be captured under (a) above; and
(f) areas of high productivity/predictable upwelling/
retention (after Murray et al., 1999; Palumbi, 2001; Roff
et al., 2003).
Selection and boundary delineation of MPAs
At the highest level, MPAs can be selected on the basis of
biological, oceanographic, physiographic, socio-cultural,
political and economic criteria. The goals of the SOS, as
currently stated, appear to balance a number of ecological
criteria – management of harvested species and ecosystemlevel conservation – as well as other socio-political
considerations (IWC, 1993). Reserves designed to either
preserve biodiversity or enhance fisheries, however, are
generally based on biological criteria (e.g. aggregations of
fecund individuals, larval nurseries; Botsford et al., 2003).
When biological information are not available,
oceanographic and physiographic proxies (frequently
termed ‘habitat’ variables) are often used when the
associations between these proxies and a population,
7
species, or community is known. Species or communities
may, for example, be linked to specific habitat structures
(e.g. depth + substrate + temperature) or processes (e.g.
upwelling + disturbance regimes + seasonal salinity/
temperature variability). Several families of multivariate
statistical methods are used for this purpose, though not all
have yet been applied to marine environments (Carpenter
and Gillison, 1993; Guisan and Zimmermann, 2000; Elith
and Burgman, 2003).
Biological, oceanographic and physiographic variables
can be used to identify a number of criteria for MPA
delineation:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
representation;
distinctiveness;
sensitivity;
vulnerability;
critical areas and life stages;
hotspots of diversity (taxonomic or genetic);
rare and endemic species;
areas subject to frequent or natural disturbance;
species of special concern and critical life history
stages;
exploitable species;
ecosystem functioning and linkages;
ecosystem services;
human threats and natural catastrophes; and
size, shape and connectivity.
In particular, the number, location and design (size and
shape) of MPAs are critical considerations (Boersma and
Parrish, 1999; Guenette et al., 2000; Halpern, 2003;
Kooyman et al., 1992). These considerations will determine
the magnitude of potential detrimental effects from MPA
implementation, including: (i) the concentration of fishing
effort outside of the MPA boundaries (Walters and Bonfil,
1999); (ii) the unpredictability of MPA effectiveness in the
face of oceanographic variability across space (advection)
and time (climate change); (iii) the inherent time lags
required for the effect(s) of MPAs on stocks/populations to
become apparent; and (iv) and the impact of overall higher
total bycatch of highly migratory species derived from the
displacement of fishing effort to less productive areas,
where lower catch rates (CPUE) require higher effort to
attain constant catches.
There are a number of techniques used to identify and
delineate boundaries for conservation purposes.
Fundamentally these techniques can be separated into those
that seek to protect the maximum (or some target) number
of elements of value (as defined by the user) and those that
rely on some ecological theory or concept to identify
optimal areas. Most of these techniques attempt to identify
and maximise values by protecting the smallest possible
area.
Well-known examples of the former include Geographic
Information System analyses of biogeographic
representation, which attempt to identify representative
(recurring at a given scale) and distinctive (unique at a given
scale) areas (Roff and Taylor, 2000; Zacharias et al., 1998).
Given our incomplete understanding of marine
communities, many of these analyses are based on
identifying representative and distinctive areas defined
exclusively by habitat characteristics (oceanographic and
physiographic), driven by a limited understanding of the
underlying ecological mechanisms. The underlying
assumption being that habitat structure can be used to
predict species and community composition. A practical
application is given in Cañadas et al., (2005).
8
ZACHARIAS et al.: REVIEW OF THE SOUTHERN OCEAN SANCTUARY
In addition, considerable effort has been directed at
developing stand-alone software that identifies potential
conservation areas on the basis of biodiversity targets set by
the user (McDonnell et al., 2002). While several iterations
of these algorithms exist (e.g. SPEXAN, Sites), the most
recent version (MARXAN) has been developed for the
Great Barrier Reef Marine Planning Authority (Leslie et al.,
2003). MARXAN is used throughout the world for
identifying optimal MPA boundaries and is now considered
a robust tool for reserve design. However, given the large
size of the SOS and the paucity of biological data for the
Southern Ocean, MARXAN may not be an appropriate tool
to evaluate this and other large-scale whale sanctuaries.
There are a number of examples of reserve design based
on ecological theory or concepts. Species-area relationships
have been used to encompass the maximum diversity within
the smallest possible area, by identifying the asymptote of
the species-area curve (Arrhenius, 1921; Neigel, 2003).
While the species-area approach has been widely criticised,
this technique continues to be widely applied due to the lack
of viable conceptual alternatives.
Focal species are a conceptual construct in conservation
that may be useful for marine reserve design. Focal species
are those which, for ecological or social reasons, are
believed to be valuable for the understanding, management
and conservation of natural environments. There are four
distinct categories of focal species: indicators, keystones,
umbrellas and flagships (Simberloff, 1998; Zacharias and
Roff, 2001a). Each type of focal species has been
operationally defined by Zacharias and Roff (2001a) in
terms of their relevance to marine conservation efforts. To
summarise, the keystone and umbrella concepts are
probably not applicable in most marine environments and
the flagship concept is a tool to garner support for
conservation efforts but provides little tangible guidance for
MPA design. Indicator species, though, may be valuable as
they indicate community types that can be related to specific
habitat types, which in turn can be mapped and protected.
The ability to identify biologically and physically distinct
habitat types is a fundamental prerequisite for conservation
initiatives based on representation (Roff and Taylor, 2000).
Models initially developed for fisheries management
have also been applied to the selection of MPAs. Perhaps the
most well-known are ECOPATH and ECOSPACE, which
allow the simulation of different types of anthropogenic
impacts on spatially-structured populations and can simulate
migratory interchange between different patches or habitat
types (Christensen and Pauly, 1992; Mackinson et al., 2003;
Walters et al., 1997). These whole-ecosystem models,
however, require the input of broad, sweeping
simplifications and assumptions (e.g. see IWC, 2004a) and
thus may not be appropriate given our current level of
knowledge of the ecological function of the Southern
Ocean.
Zoning within MPAs
Within a no-take zone, additional protection should be based
on the vulnerability of the features of interest (e.g.
populations, habitats) to various threats. Vulnerability is
defined as the probability that a feature will be exposed to a
stress to which it is sensitive. In other words, vulnerability
is the likelihood of exposure to a relevant external stress
factor (sensu Tyler-Walters and Jackson, 1999), combined in
some way with the relative exposure (duration, magnitude,
rate of change) to that stress. One method that is becoming
more widely applied is using the concept of identifying
Vulnerable Marine Areas (VMAs) (Zacharias and Gregr,
2005). This methodology, based on the Environmental
Sensitivity Index approach used for oil spill response and
countermeasures (Gundlach and Hayes, 1978) identifies
Valued Ecological Features (VEFs), which are defined as
biological or physical features, processes, or structures
deemed to have environmental, social, cultural, or economic
significance. Once VEFs are identified, they are mapped and
their sensitivities and vulnerabilities are determined and
finally VMAs are predicted using ecological classifications
(Tyler-Walters and Jackson, 1999; Zacharias and Gregr,
2005).
Designing networks or hierarchies of MPAs
This is an area of MPA research that is currently lacking a
strong empirical basis. Most studies to date have been able
to identify ‘sets’ of protected areas based on the principles
of biogeographic representation, combined with the addition
of ‘distinctive’ or unique oceanic (e.g. persistent fronts) and
physiographic (e.g. seamounts) features. Many of the tools
discussed previously (e.g. MARXAN) are able to identify
sets of MPAs, which simultaneously maximise a number of
criteria (e.g. representation, distance from human activities).
Many advocate the establishment of ‘networks’ of MPAs,
where discrete protected areas are connected through
migration and larval transport. However, the function of
networks is not yet clearly understood (Roff et al., 2003).
Other issues that arise in MPA network discussions
include the number and size of the sites required within a
particular region to accommodate habitat variability over
time, particularly in dynamic pelagic environments.
Steps to developing an MPA network include:
(a) classify the study area into representative and distinctive
areas using biogeographic analysis methods based on
biological, oceanographic and physiographic
information;
(b) verify species/community relationships within these
areas and predict species/community occurrence where
biological inventories are unavailable;
(c) determine patterns of movement and the exchange of
individuals between areas;
(d) develop inventories of conservation and management
measures to determine what existing areas already
contribute to the network;
(e) apply algorithms (e.g. MARXAN, S-A curves) to select
the smallest areas that maximise the MPA objectives;
and
(f) remove sites deemed non-viable for ecological,
political, social, or economic reasons (e.g. proximity to
human activities, site already disturbed), from the above
analysis.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Marine habitat-based conservation (such as the SOS and
other MPAs) has advanced considerably since 1994.
However, there is no reason why the SOS cannot be
revisited, in light of advances in marine conservation
reserve science. Many of the problems highlighted in the
previous sections of this review have been addressed in
other MPAs and, with some additional research, should be
resolvable for the SOS. The following are our
recommendations for the establishment and operation of the
SOS or other IWC Sanctuaries;
(1) articulate their purpose through a set of broad
overarching goals (e.g. preserve biodiversity, increase
fishery yields) – in particular, clearly state the
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 8(1):1–12, 2006
relationship between the RMP and the IWC Sanctuary
programme and how sanctuaries are expected to
contribute to the management of cetacean stocks and
species.
(2) develop measurable objectives (e.g. increase stock x to
size n by time t, decrease the probability of extinction of
stock x by y, protect feeding areas for population x) that
link the broader goals (discussed above) with field
monitoring programmes such as the IWC
IDCR/SOWER cruises (e.g. Matsuoka et al., 2003) –
this clarification will help identify and protect those
habitats ‘critical’ to achieve these management
objectives;
(3) establish systematic inventory and research
programmes to build the required information
foundation for a sanctuary management plan and
subsequent monitoring programmes that inter alia
support the following efforts:
(a) a biogeographic analysis of habitats and
communities using the concepts of representativity
and distinctiveness at the genetic, stock, species,
community and ecosystem levels (Roff and Taylor,
2000; Roff et al., 2003; Zacharias and Roff,
2001b);
(b) the identification and mapping of threats to whale
populations within and outside of the SOS and the
oceanographic/climatic linkages supporting ocean
productivity and prey availability across sanctuary
boundaries (Fig. 1; Miller and Hampton, 1989; Nel
and Taylor, 2003);
(c) identification of vulnerable areas and critical
habitats at different ecological scales (e.g.
individual foragers and population distributions)
(Block et al., 2002; Croxall and Wood, 2002;
Zacharias and Gregr, 2005), as well as their spatial
and temporal variability (Belkin and Gordon, 1996;
Hewitt et al., 2002; Kostianoy et al., 2004);
(d) investigation of pathways of whale stock structure
and connectivity (e.g. gene flow and animal
movement) (Dizon et al., 1992; Torres et al., 2003);
(e) development of measures of biotic integrity (e.g.
standing stocks, productivity) and environmental
variability (e.g. oceanography, disturbance
regimes), along with appropriate physical and
biological indicators of temporal variability at short
(inter-annual) and long (climate change) temporal
scales (Croxall, 1992; Croxall et al., 1999;
Inchausti et al., 2003);
(4) development of a Sanctuary management plan that
clearly outlines the broad strategies and specific actions
needed to achieve sanctuary objectives (e.g. how to
protect a given feeding area for stock x) and the nonIWC mechanisms required to achieve these objectives –
key aspects of a sanctuary management plan should
include:
(a) coordination with the objectives of other
conservation and management initiatives (e.g.
CCAMLR; Agnew, 1997);
(b) integration of fisheries and coastal zone
management
concepts
within
sanctuary
management objectives (Boyd, 2002; Hewitt et al.,
2002);
(c) adherence to the tenets of adaptive management
and the precautionary principle (Hewitt et al.,
2002);
9
(5) development and initiation of a monitoring strategy that
measures progress towards achieving the sanctuary
objectives (an essential component of this monitoring
strategy is the development of practical (tested by e.g.
power analyses to be achievable) indicators to monitor
progress);
(6) establishment of review criteria that reflect the goals
and objectives of the sanctuary, as described above; and
(7) refinement of the sanctuary management plan at
periodic intervals to account for ecological, social and
oceanographic changes in an adaptive fashion.
CONCLUSIONS
Even ignoring the fact that the SOS was established during
the moratorium, it was based on vague goals and objectives
that are difficult to measure, lacks a rigorous approach to its
design and operation and does not have an effective
monitoring framework to determine whether its objectives
are being met. The SOS in particular – and IWC Sanctuaries
in general – appear to have been established as a sociopolitical compromise between an area-based fisheries
closure and a conservation reserve. Unfortunately, the SOS
is neither an effective harvest closure, nor does it meet the
generally accepted criteria for conservation reserve design
and operation (Botsford et al., 2003). The SOS attempts to
fulfil a number of vague objectives (e.g. ‘ecosystem
rehabilitation’, ‘critical habitat’ protection) without
addressing the systematic application of quantitative criteria
to attain tangible goals. Any ‘scientific’ objectives appear to
have been added to lend credibility to the SOS after the
sanctuary was established. Furthermore, the intent to
incorporate MPA concepts into IWC Sanctuaries appears to
be in response to the criticisms faced by this programme in
the past.
The SOS can be said to represent a ‘shotgun’ approach to
conservation, where a large area is protected with little
apparent rationale for boundary selection and management
prescriptions. Of even greater concern is the realisation that
the Sanctuary was established without a proper
understanding, discussion, or prediction of what
contributions it is expected to make towards biodiversity
protection and fisheries management in the Southern Ocean.
Another critical issue is the lack of a general temporal
framework for evaluation of the objectives discussed above.
Even a broad conservation objective, such as improving the
protection of Southern Ocean whale stocks, should include
a quantifiable metric to gauge success and a time frame for
this objective to be met (e.g. reduce the probability of
extinction of species s in the next y years to less than x,
determine population numbers with a confidence of n).
These criteria are essential to provide the necessary
ecological background for the development and testing of
population models, to guide the collection of the necessary
empirical data to support these modelling efforts and to
determine the management approaches and the levels of
protection required to meet these conservation goals (Doak
and Mills, 1994; Fujiwara and Caswell, 2001; Gerber et al.,
2005; Mangel and Tier, 1994). Once these criteria and
objectives have been set, they will help define the required
temporal and spatial extent of the proposed sanctuary and
the baseline information necessary to gauge the current
status of the various ecosystem constituents (Dayton et al.,
1998; Jackson et al., 2001; Woehler, 1997).
The existence of the moratorium and whaling under
special permit has not permitted the SOS to fulfil its role of
protecting whales and fostering comparative research of
10
ZACHARIAS et al.: REVIEW OF THE SOUTHERN OCEAN SANCTUARY
harvested and non-harvested whale stocks. Consequently,
we conclude that the SOS has contributed little to the
protection and understanding of whales in the Southern
Ocean. If the moratorium were lifted and the RMP applied,
the SOS may become more relevant to whale conservation
and management. However, given that all baleen whales
migrate outside of the SOS, it alone would not prevent RMP
catches being taken outside its boundaries. Therefore, if the
moratorium is lifted, careful integration between the SOS
and RMP will be required.
While the SOS could be an important first step towards an
ecosystem approach to management in the Southern Ocean,
by itself is not an effective management construct. In
particular, adequate protection from all potential threats, not
simply commercial whaling, for all populations of large
whales in the Southern Ocean is an important first step
towards promoting the proper function of this large marine
ecosystem. If the SOS is to become a cornerstone in
ecosystem-based management of the Southern Ocean, the
IWC must work with other regional institutions and global
initiatives to ensure that threats to large whales other than
commercial whaling and environmental variability (e.g.
climate change) are considered.
REFERENCES
Agnew, D.J. 1997. Review: the CCAMLR ecosystem monitoring
program. Antarct. Sci. 9:235-42.
Ainley, D.G. 2003. The Ross Sea, Antarctica, where all ecosystem
processes still remain for study, but maybe not for long. Mar.
Ornithol 30:55-62.
Ainley, D.G., Fraser, W.R., Sullivan, C.W., Torres, J.J., Hopkins, T.L.
and Smith, W.O. 1986. Antarctic mesopelagic micronekton: evidence
from seabirds that pack ice affects community structure. Science
232:847-9.
Airame, A., Dugan, J.E., Lafferty, K.D., Leslie, H., McArdle, D.H. and
Warner, R.R. 2003. Applying ecological criteria to marine reserve
design: a case study from the California Channel Islands. Ecol. Appl.
13(1):S170-84.
Arrhenius, O. 1921. Species and area. J. Ecol. 9:95-9.
Belkin, I.M. and Gordon, A.L. 1996. Southern Ocean fronts from the
Greenwich meridian to Tasmania. J. Geophys. Res. 101(C2):3675-96.
Block, B.A., Costa, D.P., Boehert, G.W. and Kochevar, R.E. 2002.
Revealing pelagic habitat use: the tagging of Pacific pelagics
program. Oceanol. Acta. 25:255-66.
Boersma, P.D. and Parrish, J.K. 1999. Limiting abuse: marine protected
areas, a limited solution. Ecol. Econ. 31:287-304.
Botsford, L.W., Micheli, F. and Hastings, A. 2003. Principles for the
design of marine reserves. Ecol. Appl. 13(1):S25-31.
Boyd, I.L. 2002. Integrated environment-prey-predator interactions off
South Georgia: implications for management of fisheries. Aquat.
Conserv. 12:119-26.
Boyd, I.L. and Murray, A.W.A. 2001. Monitoring a marine ecosystem
using responses of upper trophic level predators. J. Anim. Ecol.
70:747-60.
Butterworth, D.S. and De Oliveira, J.A.A. 1994. Estimating the natural
growth rate of baleen whale populations – is a sanctuary a help or a
hindrance, and what would be the implications of a deteriorating
habitat? Rep. int. Whal. Commn 44:413-28.
Butterworth, D.S. and Punt, A.E. 1994. An investigation of the merits or
otherwise of the proposal for an Antarctic-wide whale sanctuary by
means of adaptations of the simulation trials used to test the Revised
Management Procedure. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 44:289-302.
Cañadas, A., Sagarminaga, R., De Stephanis, R., Urquiola, E. and
Hammond, P.S. 2005. Habitat selection modelling as a conservation
tool: proposals for marine protected areas for cetaceans in southern
Spanish waters. Aquat. Conserv. 15:495-521.
Carpenter, G.G. and Gillison, A.N. 1993. DOMAIN: a flexible
modelling procedure for mapping potential distributions of plants and
animals. Biodiv. Conserv. 2:667-80.
Christensen, V. and Pauly, D. 1992. Ecopath-II – A software for
balancing steady-state ecosystem models and calculating network
characteristics. Ecol. Modell. 61(3-4):169-85.
Croxall, J.P. 1992. Southern Ocean environmental changes – effects on
seabird, seal and whale populations. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B.
(Biol. Sci.) 338(1285):319-28.
Croxall, J.P. and Wood, A.G. 2002. The importance of the Patagonian
Shelf for top predator species breeding at South Georgia. Aquat.
Conserv. 12:309-22.
Croxall, J.P., Reid, K. and Prince, P.A. 1999. Diet, provisioning and
productivity responses of marine predators to differences in
availability of Antarctic krill. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 177:115-31.
Davies, C.R. and Gales, N. 2004. A brief review of sanctuary theory as
it applies to the review of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary and
observed patterns in great whale populations in the Southern Ocean.
Paper SC/56/SOS2 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, July
2004, Sorrento, Italy (unpublished). 19pp. [Paper available from the
Office of this Journal].
Dayton, P.K., Tegner, M.J., Edwards, P.B. and Riser, K.L. 1998. Sliding
baselines, ghosts, and reduced expectations in kelp forest
communities. Ecol. Appl. 8:309-22.
De Boer, M.N., Baldwin, R., Burton, C.L.K., Eyre, L., Jenner, K.C.S.,
Jenner, M.-N.M., Keith, S.G., McCabe, K.A., Parsons, E.C.M.,
Peddemors, V.M., Rosenbaum, H.C., Rudolph, P., Thiele, D. and
Simmonds, M. 2003. Cetaceans in the Indian Ocean Sanctuary: a
review. Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society. 52pp. [Available
from www.wdcs.org].
Dizon, A.E., Lockyer, C., Perrin, W.F., Demaster, D.P. and Seisson, J.
1992. Rethinking the stock concept: a phylogeographic approach.
Conserv. Biol. 6:24-36.
Doak, D.F. and Mills, L.S. 1994. A useful role for theory in
conservation. Ecology 75:615-26.
Donovan, G.P. 2002. International Whaling Commission. pp. 637-41.
In: W.F. Perrin, B. Wursig and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.)
Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. 1st. Edn. Academic Press, San
Diego. 1,414.
Duggan, J.E. and Davis, G.E. 1993. Applications of marine refugia
to coastal fisheries management. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50:202942.
Elith, J. and Burgman, M.A. (eds.). 2003. Habitat Models for
Population Viability Analysis. Population Viability in Plants.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Ensor, P., Matsuoka, K., Komiya, H., Ljungblad, D., Miura, T., Morse,
L., Olson, P., Olavarria, C., Mori, M. and Sekiguchi, K. 2004. 20032004 International Whaling Commission-Southern Ocean Whale and
Ecosystem Research (IWC-SOWER) Circumpolar Cruise, Area V.
68pp. Paper SC/56/IA13 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee,
Sorrento, Italy, July 2004; Paper SOWER/04/WP15 presented to the
Planning Meeting for the 2004/2005 IWC/SOWER Circumpolar
Cruise, Tokyo, 29-30 September, 2004.
Fujiwara, M. and Caswell, H. 2001. Demography of the endangered
north Atlantic right whale. Nature 414 (November 2001):537-41.
Gell, F.R. and Roberts, C.M. 2003. Benefits beyond boundaries: the
fishery effects of marine reserves. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18(9):448-55.
Gerber, L.R., Botsford, L.W., Hastings, A., Possingham, H.P., Gaines,
S.D., Palumbi, S.R. and Andelman, S. 2003. Population models for
marine reserve design: a retrospective and prospective synthesis.
Ecol. Appl. 13(1 Supplement):S47-64.
Gerber, L.R., Hyrenbach, K.D. and Zacharias, M.A. 2005. Do the
largest protected areas conserve whales or whalers? Science 307(28
Jan 2005):525-6. [Plus supported online material at
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5709/525/DC1].
Gillespie, D. 1997. An acoustic survey for sperm whales in the Southern
Ocean Sanctuary conducted from the RSV Aurora Australis. Rep. int.
Whal. Commn 47:897-907.
Gilman, E. 2001. Integrated management to address the incidental
mortality of seabirds in longline fisheries. Aquat. Conserv. 11:391414.
Gjerde, K.M. 2001. Current legal development: high seas marine
protected areas: ‘participants’ report of the expert workshop on
managing risks to biodiversity and the environment on the high seas,
including tools such as marine protected areas. International Journal
of Marine and Coastal Law 16(3):515-28.
Guenette, S., Pitcher, T.J. and Walters, C.J. 2000. The potential of
marine reserves for the management of northern cod on
Newfoundland. Bull. Mar. Sci. 66:831-52.
Guisan, A.Z. and Zimmermann, N.E. 2000. Predictive habitat
distribution models in ecology. Ecol. Modell. 135:147-86.
Gundlach, E.R. and Hayes, M. 1978. Classification of coastal
environments in terms of potential vulnerability to oil spill damage.
Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 12(4):18-27.
Halpern, B. 2003. The impact of marine reserves: do reserves work and
does reserve size matter? Ecol. Appl. 13(1):S117-37.
Hammond, P.S. and Donovan, G. (eds.). In press. Special Issue on the
Revised Management Procedure (SPECIAL ISSUE) 3. G. Donovan
(ed.) International Whaling Commission, Cambridge, UK.
Hastings, A. and Botsford, L.W. 2003. Comparing designs of marine
reserves for fisheries and for biodiversity. Ecol. Appl. 13(1):S65-70.
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 8(1):1–12, 2006
Hewitt, R.P., Watkins, J.L., Naganobu, M., Tshernyshlov, P., Brierley,
A.S., Demer, D.A., Kasatkina, S., Takao, Y., Goss, C., Malyshko, A.,
Brandon, M.A., Kawaguchi, S., Siegel, V., Trathan, P.N., Emery, J.H.,
Everson, I. and Miller, D.G.M. 2002. Setting a precautionary catch
limit for Antarctic krill. Oceanography 15(3):26-33.
Hofmann, E.E., Klinck, J.M., Costa, D.P., Daly, K.L., Torres, J.J. and
Fraser, W.R. 2002. US Southern Ocean Global Ocean Ecosystems
Dynamics Program. Oceanography 15(2):64-74.
Hooker, S.K. and Gerber, L.R. 2004. Marine reserves as a tool for
ecosystem-based management: the potential importance of
megafauna. Biosci. 54(1):27-39.
Hooker, S.K., Whitehead, H. and Gowans, S. 1999. Marine protected
area design and the spatial and temporal distribution of cetaceans in
a submarine canyon. Conserv. Biol. 13:592-602.
Hooker, S.K., Whitehead, H. and Gowans, S. 2002. Ecosystem
consideration in conservation planning: Energy demand of foraging
bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon ampullatus) in a marine protected
area. Biol. Conserv. 104:51-8.
Hucke-Gaete, R., Osman, L.P., Moreno, C.A., Findlay, K.P. and
Ljungblad, D.K. 2004. Discovery of a blue whale feeding and
nursing ground in southern Chile. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B.
271:S170-3.
Hunt, G.L., Heinemann, D. and Everson, I. 1992. Distributions and
predator-prey interactions of macaroni penguins, Antarctic fur seals,
and Antarctic krill near Bird Island, South Georgia. Mar. Ecol. Prog.
Ser. 86:15-30.
Hunt, G.L., Jr., Kato, H. and McKinnell, S.M. 2000. Predation by
marine birds and mammals in the sub-Arctic North Pacific ocean.
PICES Sci. Rep. 14:1-165. [See http://pices.ios.bc.ca].
Hyrenbach, K.D., Forney, K.A. and Dayton, P.K. 2000. Marine
protected areas and ocean basin management. Aquat. Conserv.
10:437-58.
Inchausti, P., Guinet, C., Koudil, M., Durbec, J.P., Barbaud, C.,
Weimerskirch, H., Cherel, Y. and Jouventin, P. 2003. Inter-annual
variability in the breeding performance of seabirds in relation to
oceanographic anomolies that affect the Crozet and the Kerguelen
sectors of the Southern Ocean. J. Avian Biol. 34(2):170-6.
International Whaling Commission. 1955. Report of the Scientific SubCommittee, April 1955. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 6:17-24.
International Whaling Commission. 1991. Report of the Scientific
Committee. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 41:51-89.
International Whaling Commission. 1993. Chairman’s Report of the
Forty-Fourth Meeting, Appendix 4. Resolution on a Sanctuary in the
Southern Hemisphere. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 43:41-8.
International Whaling Commission. 1999. Chairman’s Report of the
Fiftieth Annual Meeting. Appendix 4. IWC Resolution 1998-3.
Resolution on the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. Ann. Rep. Int. Whaling
Comm. 1998:42-3.
International Whaling Commission. 2000. Chairman’s Report of the
Fifty-First Annual Meeting. Ann. Rep. Int. Whaling Comm. 1999:750.
International Whaling Commission. 2001a. Chairman’s Report of the
52nd Annual Meeting. Ann. Rep. Int. Whaling Comm. 2000:11-63.
International Whaling Commission. 2001b. Report of the Scientific
Committee. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 3:1-76.
International Whaling Commission. 2002. Report of the Scientific
Committee. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 4:1-78.
International Whaling Commission. 2004a. Report of the Modelling
Workshop on Cetacean-Fishery Competition. J. Cetacean Res.
Manage. (Suppl.) 6:413-26.
International Whaling Commission. 2004b. Report of the Scientific
Committee. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 6:1-60.
International Whaling Commission. 2004c. Report of the Scientific
Committee. Annex P. Report of the Working Group to Review
Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Proposals. J. Cetacean Res. Manage.
(Suppl.) 6:367-74.
International Whaling Commission. 2006a. International Convention
for the Regulation of Whaling. Ann. Rep. Int. Whaling Comm.
2005:151-3.
International Whaling Commission. 2006b. Report of the Scientific
Committee. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 8:1-65.
Jackson, J.C.B., Kirby, M.X., Berger, W.H., Bjorndal, K.A., Botsford,
L.W., Bourque, B.J., Bradbury, R.H., Cooke, R., Erlandson, J., Estes,
J.A., Hughes, T.P., Kidwell, S., Lange, C.B., Lenihan, H.S., Pandolfi,
J.M., Peterson, C.H., Steneck, R.S., Tegner, M.J. and Warner, R.R.
2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal
ecosystems. Science 293:629-38.
Kelleher, G. (ed.). 1999. Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas. IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xxiv+107pp.
Kooyman, G.L., Ancel, A. and Le Maho, Y. 1992. Foraging behaviour
of Emperor Penguins as resource detector in winter and summer.
Nature 360:336-8.
11
Kostianoy, A.G., Ginzburg, A.I., Frankignoulle, M. and Delille, B.
2004. Fronts in the southern Indian Ocean as inferred from satellite
temperature data. J. Mar. Systems 45:55-73.
Leaper, R. and Papastavrou, V. 1999. Results from a passive acoustic
survey, and visual observations of cetaceans in the Southern Ocean
Sanctuary around South Georgia, conducted from the British
Antarctic Survey vessel RRS James Clark Ross. Paper SC/51/O17
presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, May 1999, Grenada, WI
(unpublished). 11pp. [Paper available from the Office of this
Journal].
Leaper, R. and Scheidat, M. 1998. An acoustic survey for cetaceans in
the Southern Ocean Sanctuary conducted from the German
Government research vessel Polarstern. Rep. int. Whal. Commn
48:431-7.
Leatherwood, S. and Donovan, G.P. (eds.). 1991. Marine Mammal
Technical Report. No. 3. Cetaceans and Cetacean Research in the
Indian Ocean Sanctuary. 1st Edn. UN Environment Programme,
Nairobi. vii+287pp.
Leslie, H.R., Ruckelshaus, R., Ball, I.R., Andelman, S. and Possingham,
H.P. 2003. Using siting algorithms in the design of marine reserve
networks. Ecol. Appl. 13(1):S185-98.
Longhurst, A. 1998. Ecological Geography of the Sea. Academic Press,
San Diego. 398pp.
Mackinson, S., Blanchard, J.L., Pinnegar, J.K. and Scott, R. 2003.
Consequences of alternative functional response formulations in
models exploring whale-fishery interactions. Mar. Mammal Sci.
19(4):661-81.
Mangel, M. and Tier, C. 1994. Four facts every conservation biologist
should know about persistence. Ecology 75:607-14.
Matsuoka, K., Ensor, P., Hakamada, T., Shimada, H., Nishiwaki, S.,
Kasamatsu, F. and Kato, H. 2003. Overview of minke whale sightings
surveys conducted on IWC/IDCR and SOWER Antarctic cruises
from 1978/79 to 2000/01. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 5(2):173-201.
McDonnell, M.D., Possingham, H.P., Ball, I.R. and Cousins, E.A. 2002.
Mathematical methods for spatially cohesive reserve design. Environ.
Monitoring and Assessment 7:107-14.
Miller, D.G.M. and Hampton, I. 1989. Biology and Ecology of the
Antarctic Krill (Euphausia superba): a review. Biological
Investigations of Marine Antarctic Systems and Stocks (BIOMASS),
Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge, UK.
Murray, S.A., Ambrose, R.F., Bonshack, J.A., Botsford, L.W., Carr,
M.H., Davis, G.E., Dayton, P.K., Gotshall, D., Gunderson, D.R.,
Hixon, M.A., Lubchenco, J., Mangel, M., MacCall, A., McArdle,
D.A., Ogden, J.C., Roughgarden, J., Starr, R.M., Tegner, M.J. and
Yoklavich, M. 1999. No-take reserve networks: sustaining fishery
populations and marine ecosystems. Fisheries 24(11):11-25.
Neigel, J.E. 2003. Species-Area relationships and marine conservation.
Ecol. Appl. 13(1):S138-45.
Nel, D.C. and Taylor, F.E. 2003. Globally Threatened Seabirds at Risk
from Longline Fishing: International Conservation Responsibilities.
Birdlife International Seabird Conservation Programme, Cape Town.
Palumbi, S.R. 2001. The ecology of marine protected areas. pp. 509-30.
In: M.D. Bertness, S.D. Gaines and M.E. Hay (eds.) Marine
Community Ecology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Parrish, R. 1999. Marine reserves for fisheries management: why not?
Calif. Coop. Ocea. Fish. Inves. Rep. 40:601-5.
Probert, P.K. 1999. Seamounts, sanctuaries and sustainability: moving
towards deep-sea conservation. Aquat. Conserv. 9:601-5.
Rio, M.H. and Hernandez, F. 2003. High-frequency response of winddriven currents measured by drifting buoys and altimetry over the
world ocean. J. Geophys. Res. 108:C8.
Roberts, C.M. and Hawkins, J.P. 2000. Fully-protected Marine
Reserves: a guide. WWF-US Endangered Seas Campaign,
Washington, DC. 131pp.
Roff, J.C. and Taylor, M.E. 2000. National frameworks for marine
conservation – a hierarchical geophysical approach. Aquat. Conserv.
10(3):209-23.
Roff, J.C., Taylor, M.E. and Laughren, J. 2003. Geophysical approaches
to the classification, delineation and monitoring of marine habitats
and their communities. Aquat. Conserv. 13(1):77-90.
Simberloff, D. 1998. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is singlespecies management passe in the landscape era? Biol. Conserv.
83(3):247-57.
Stafford, K.M., Bohnenstiehl, D.R., Tolstoy, M., Chapp, E., Mellinger,
D.K. and Moore, S.E. 2004. Antarctic-type blue whale calls recorded
at low latitudes in the Indian and eastern Pacific Oceans. Deep Sea
Research Part 1(51):1337-46.
Stahl, J.C., Jouventin, P., Mougin, J.L., Roux, J.P. and Weimerskirch, H.
1985. The foraging zones of seabirds in the Crozet Islands sector of
the Southern Ocean. Antarctic nutrient cycles and food webs.
Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Antarctic Biology. SpringerVerlag, Berlin.
12
ZACHARIAS et al.: REVIEW OF THE SOUTHERN OCEAN SANCTUARY
Stevick, P., Allen, J., Carlson, C. and Holm, B. 2004. The Antarctic
humpback whale catalogue: A collaborative study of humpback
whales in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. Paper SC/56/SOS4
presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, July 2004, Sorrento,
Italy. 9pp.
Sverdrup, H.U., Johnson, M.W. and Fleming, R.H. 1942. The Oceans.
Their Physics, Chemistry, and General Biology. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
New York. x+1,087pp.
Thiele, D., Asmus, K., Dolman, S., Falkenburg, C.D., Glasgow, D.,
Hodda, P., McDonald, M., McKay, S., Oleson, E., Sirovic, A., Souter,
A., Moore, S. and Hildebrand, J. 2004. International Whaling
Commission – Southern Ocean collaboration cruise report 20032004. Paper SC/56/E24 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee,
July 2004, Sorrento, Italy (unpublished). 14pp.
Torres, L.G., Rosel, P.E., D’Agrosa, C. and Read, A.J. 2003. Improving
management of overlapping bottlenose dolphin ecotypes through
spatial analysis and genetics. Mar. Mammal Sci. 19(3):502-14.
Tyler-Walters, H. and Jackson, A. 1999. MarLIN Report. No.4.
Assessing seabed species and ecosystems sensitivities. Rationale and
user guide. Report to English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage and
the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions from
the Marine Life Information Network. Marine Biological Association
of the UK, Plymouth. 46pp.
Tynan, C.T. 1998. Ecological importance of the Southern Boundary of
the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. Nature 392:708-10.
Van Waerebeek, K., Leaper, R., Baker, A.N., Papastavrou, V. and
Thiele, D. 2004. Odontocetes of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. Paper
SC/56/SOS1 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, July 2004,
Sorrento, Italy. 35pp.
Walters, C.J. and Bonfil, R. 1999. Multispecies spatial assessment
models for the British Columbia groundfish trawl fishery. Can. J.
Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56:601-28.
Walters, C., Christensen, V. and Pauly, D. 1997. Structuring dynamic
models of exploited ecosystems from trophic mass-balance
assessments. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 7:139-72.
Woehler, E.J. 1997. Seabird abundance, biomass and prey consumption
within Prydz Bay, Anatrctica, 1980/1981-1992/1993. Polar Biol.
17:371-83.
Zacharias, M.A. and Gregr, E.J. 2005. Sensitivity and vulnerability in
marine environments: an approach to identifying vulnerable marine
areas. Conserv. Biol. 19:86-97.
Zacharias, M.A. and Roff, J.C. 2000. An ecological framework for
the conservation of marine biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 14(5):132734.
Zacharias, M.A. and Roff, J.C. 2001a. Use of a focal species in marine
conservation and management: a review and critique. Aquat.
Conserv. 11:59-76.
Zacharias, M.A. and Roff, J.C. 2001b. Zacharias and Roff vs. Saloman
et al: who adds more value to marine conservation efforts? Conserv.
Biol. 15(5):1456-8.
Zacharias, M.A., Howes, D.E., Harper, J.R. and Wainwright, P. 1998.
The development and verification of a marine ecological
classification: a case study in the Pacific marine region of Canada.
Coastal Manage. 26(2):105-24.
Date received: August 2004
Date accepted: July 2005